OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TES when employed to improve bowel function and constipation-related symptoms in children with constipation.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) (1950 to July 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to July 2015), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, trial registries and conference proceedings to identify applicable studies .
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that assessed any type of TES, administered at home or in a clinical setting, compared to no treatment, a sham TES, other forms of nerve stimulation or any other pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical measures used to treat constipation in children were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for categorical outcomes data and the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: One study from Australia including 46 children aged 8 to 18 years was eligible for inclusion. There were multiple reports identified, including one unpublished report, that focused on different outcomes of the same study. The study had unclear risk of selection bias, high risks of performance, detection and attrition biases, and low risks of reporting biases.There were no significant differences between TES and the sham control group for the following outcomes: i).number of children with > 3 complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM) per week (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53, one study, 42 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision ), ii). number of children with improved colonic transit assessed radiologically (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.63; one study, 21 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias, serious imprecision and indirectness of the outcome). However, mean colonic transit rate, measured as the position of the geometric centre of the radioactive substance ingested along the intestinal tract, was significantly higher in children who received TES compared to sham (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; one study, 30 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias , serious imprecision and indirectness of the outcome). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of children with improved soiling-related symptoms (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.00; one study, 25 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision). There was no significant difference in the number of children with improved quality of life (QoL) (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 28.40; one study, 16 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias issues and serious imprecision ). There were also no significant differences in in self-perceived (MD 5.00, 95% CI -1.21 to 11.21) or parent-perceived QoL (MD -0.20, 95% CI -7.57 to 7.17, one study, 33 participants for both outcomes) (QUALITY OF EVIDENCE for both outcomes: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision). No adverse effects were reported in the included study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The very low quality evidence gathered in this review does not suggest that TES provides a benefit for children with chronic constipation. Further randomized controlled trials assessing TES for the management of childhood constipation should be conducted. Future trials should include clear documentation of methodologies, especially measures to evaluate the effectiveness of blinding, and incorporate patient-important outcomes such as the number of patients with improved CSBM, improved clinical symptoms and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TES when employed to improve bowel function and constipation-related symptoms in children with constipation.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) (1950 to July 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to July 2015), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, trial registries and conference proceedings to identify applicable studies .
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that assessed any type of TES, administered at home or in a clinical setting, compared to no treatment, a sham TES, other forms of nerve stimulation or any other pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical measures used to treat constipation in children were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for categorical outcomes data and the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes assessed in this review using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS: One study from Australia including 46 children aged 8 to 18 years was eligible for inclusion. There were multiple reports identified, including one unpublished report, that focused on different outcomes of the same study. The study had unclear risk of selection bias, high risks of performance, detection and attrition biases, and low risks of reporting biases.We are very uncertain about the effects of TES on bowel movements, colonic transit, soiling symptoms and quality of life due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision. For our outcomes of interest the 95% CI of most analysis results include potential benefit and no effect. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of TES on bowel movements and colonic transit. The study reported that 16/21 children in the TES group and 15/21 in the sham group had > 3 complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM) per week (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53; very low-quality evidence). Ten out of 14 children in the TES group had improved colonic transit compared to 1/7 in the sham group (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.63; very low-quality evidence). Mean colonic transit rate, measured as the position of the geometric centre of the radioactive substance ingested along the intestinal tract, was higher in children who received TES compared to sham (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; one study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence). The radiological assessment of colonic transit outcomes means that these results might not translate to important improvement in clinical symptoms or increased bowel movements. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of TES on symptoms and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Nine out of 13 children in the TES group had improved soiling-related symptoms compared to 4/12 sham participants (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.00; very low-quality evidence). Four out of 8 TES participants reported an improvement in QoL compared to 1/8 sham participants (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 28.40; very low-quality evidence). The effects of TES on self-perceived (MD 5.00, 95% CI -1.21 to 11.21; one study, 33 participants; very low-quality evidence) or parent-perceived QoL (MD -0.20, 95% CI -7.57 to 7.17, one study, 33 participants; very low-quality evidence) are uncertain. No adverse effects were reported in the included study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results for the outcomes assessed in this review are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of TES in children with chronic constipation can be drawn. Further randomized controlled trials assessing TES for the management of childhood constipation should be conducted. Future trials should include clear documentation of methodologies, especially measures to evaluate the effectiveness of blinding, and incorporate patient-important outcomes such as the number of patients with improved CSBM, improved clinical symptoms and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TES when employed to improve bowel function and constipation-related symptoms in children with constipation.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) (1950 to July 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to July 2015), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, trial registries and conference proceedings to identify applicable studies .
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that assessed any type of TES, administered at home or in a clinical setting, compared to no treatment, a sham TES, other forms of nerve stimulation or any other pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical measures used to treat constipation in children were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for categorical outcomes data and the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: One study from Australia including 46 children aged 8 to 18 years was eligible for inclusion. There were multiple reports identified, including one unpublished report, that focused on different outcomes of the same study. The study had unclear risk of selection bias, high risks of performance, detection and attrition biases, and low risks of reporting biases.There were no significant differences between TES and the sham control group for the following outcomes: i).number of children with > 3 complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM) per week (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53, one study, 42 participants) (Quality of evidence: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision ), ii). number of children with improved colonic transit assessed radiologically (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.63; one study, 21 participants) (Quality of evidence: very low, due to high risk of bias, serious imprecision and indirectness of the outcome). However, mean colonic transit rate, measured as the position of the geometric centre of the radioactive substance ingested along the intestinal tract, was significantly higher in children who received TES compared to sham (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; one study, 30 participants) (Quality of evidence: very low, due to high risk of bias , serious imprecision and indirectness of the outcome). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of children with improved soiling-related symptoms (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.00; one study, 25 participants) (Quality of evidence: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision). There was no significant difference in the number of children with improved quality of life (QoL) (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 28.40; one study, 16 participants) (Quality of evidence: very low, due to high risk of bias issues and serious imprecision ). There were also no significant differences in in self-perceived (MD 5.00, 95% CI -1.21 to 11.21) or parent-perceived QoL (MD -0.20, 95% CI -7.57 to 7.17, one study, 33 participants for both outcomes) (Quality of evidence for both outcomes: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision). No adverse effects were reported in the included study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results for the outcomes assessed in this review are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of TES in children with chronic constipation can be drawn. Further randomized controlled trials assessing TES for the management of childhood constipation should be conducted. Future trials should include clear documentation of methodologies, especially measures to evaluate the effectiveness of blinding, and incorporate patient-important outcomes such as the number of patients with improved CSBM, improved clinical symptoms and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of TENS for managing pain in people with SCD who experience pain crises or chronic pain (or both).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Register, comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of the last search: 26 Febraury 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, where TENS was evaluated for managing pain in people with SCD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the trials identified by the literature searches according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS: One double-blind cross-over RCT with 22 participants with SCD (aged 12 to 27 years) was eligible for inclusion. Following stratification into four pain crises severity grades, participants were then randomised to receive TENS or placebo (sham TENS). The trial was concluded after 60 treatment episodes (30 treatment episodes of each treatment group). There is a lack of clarity regarding the trial design and the analysis of the cross-over data. If a participant was allocated to TENS treatment for an episode of pain and subsequently returned with a further episode of a similar degree of pain, they would then receive the sham TENS treatment (cross-over design). For those experiencing a pain episode of a different severity, it is not clear whether they were re-randomised or given the alternate treatment. Reporting and analysis was based on the total number pain events and not on the number of participants. It is unclear how many participants were crossed over from the TENS group to the sham TENS group and vice versa. The trial had a high risk of bias regarding random sequence generation and allocation concealment; an unclear risk regarding the blinding of participants and personnel; and a low risk regarding the blinding of the outcome assessors and selective outcome reporting. The trial was small and of very low quality; furthermore, given the issue with trial design we were unable to quantitatively analyse the data. Therefore, we present only a narrative summary and caution is advised in interpreting the results. In relation to our pre-defined primary outcomes, the included trial did not report pain relief at two to four weeks post intervention. The trial authors reported that no difference was found in the changes in pain ratings (recorded at one hour and four hours post intervention) between the TENS and the placebo groups. In relation to our secondary outcomes, the analgesic usage during the trial also did not show any difference between groups. Given the quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether TENS improves overall satisfaction as compared to sham TENS. The ability to cope with activities of daily living was not evaluated. Regarding adverse events, although one case of itching was reported in the TENS group, the site and nature of itching was not clearly stated; hence it cannot be clearly attributed to TENS. Also, two participants receiving 'sham' TENS reported a worsening of pain with the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since we have only included one small and very low-quality trial, with a high risk of bias across several domains, we are unable to conclude whether TENS is harmful or beneficial for managing pain in people with SCD. There is a need for a well-designed, adequately-powered, RCT to evaluate the role of TENS in managing pain in people with SCD.
METHODS: Children with treatment-resistant constipation presenting to a tertiary hospital had gastrointestinal nuclear transit study (NTS) showing normal proximal colonic transit and anorectal holdup of tracer. TES was administered at home (1 hour/day for 3 months) using a battery-powered interferential stimulator, with four adhesive electrodes (4 × 4 cm) connected so currents cross within the lower abdomen at the level of S2-S4. Stimulation was added to existing laxatives. Daily continence diary, and quality-of-life questionnaires (PedsQL4.0) were compared before and after TES.
RESULTS: Ten children (4 females: 5-10 years, mean 8 years) had holdup in the anorectum by NTS. Nine had <3 bowel motions (BM)/week. After three months TES, defecation frequency increased in 9/10 (mean 0.9-4.1 BM/week, p = 0.004), with 6/9 improved to ≥3 BM/week. Soiling reduced in 9/10 from 5.9 to 1.9 days/week with soiling, p = 0.004. Ten were on laxatives, and nine reduced/stopped laxative use. Quality-of-life improved to within the normal range.
CONCLUSION: TES improved symptoms of constipation in >50% of children with treatment-resistant constipation with isolated holdup in the anorectum. Further studies (RCTs) are warranted in these children.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of electrical stimulation of the tragus on autonomic outputs in the rat and probe the underlying neural pathways.
METHODS: Central neuronal projections from nerves innervating the external auricle were investigated by injections of the transganglionic tracer cholera toxin B chain (CTB) into the right tragus of Wistar rats. Physiological recordings of heart rate, perfusion pressure, respiratory rate and sympathetic nerve activity were made in an anaesthetic free Working Heart Brainstem Preparation (WHBP) of the rat and changes in response to electrical stimulation of the tragus analysed.
RESULTS: Neuronal tracing from the tragus revealed that the densest CTB labelling was within laminae III-IV of the dorsal horn of the upper cervical spinal cord, ipsilateral to the injection sites. In the medulla oblongata, CTB labelled afferents were observed in the paratrigeminal nucleus, spinal trigeminal tract and cuneate nucleus. Surprisingly, only sparse labelling was observed in the vagal afferent termination site, the nucleus tractus solitarius. Recordings made from rats at night time revealed more robust sympathetic activity in comparison to day time rats, thus subsequent experiments were conducted in rats at night time. Electrical stimulation was delivered across the tragus for 5 min. Direct recording from the sympathetic chain revealed a central sympathoinhibition by up to 36% following tragus stimulation. Sympathoinhibition remained following sectioning of the cervical vagus nerve ipsilateral to the stimulation site, but was attenuated by sectioning of the upper cervical afferent nerve roots.
CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of the sympathetic nervous system activity upon electrical stimulation of the tragus in the rat is mediated at least in part through sensory afferent projections to the upper cervical spinal cord. This challenges the notion that tragal stimulation is mediated by the auricular branch of the vagus nerve and suggests that alternative mechanisms may be involved.
METHODS: Children with STC confirmed by nuclear transit study (NTS) were enrolled prospectively. All had chronic constipation for greater than two years and had failed medical treatment. TES was performed for one hour/day for six months using the INF 4160 (Fuji Dynamics) portable stimulator and 4 cm × 4 cm electrodes near the belly button and on the back. Families kept bowel diaries and completed PEDSQLCore QOL (4.0) questionnaires before and at end of treatment.
RESULTS: Sixty-two children (34 females; seven years, 2-16 year) with STC were studied. Defecation frequency increased in 57/62 (91%, mean ± SEM pre- 1.49 ± 0.20 vs. post- 3.25 ± 0.25 defecation/week, p
Materials and Methods: This is a single-center quasi-experimental study involving 100 patients seen in the outpatient department with knee osteoarthritis. They were randomly (computer generated) allocated into two arms (high frequency [H-F] or low frequency [L-F]). H-F is set at 100 Hz and L-F is set at 4 Hz. A baseline assessment is taken with the visual analog score (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Knee Score, and Lequesne index. They were instructed to self-administer the TENS therapy as per protocol and followed up at the 4th and 12th week to be reevaluated on the above scores.
Results: The final results show that both H-F and L-F groups showed improvement in all parameters of the VAS, WOMAC index, Oxford Knee Score, and Lequesne index (73%). Only the pain component of Lequesne index, activities of daily living component of Lequesne index, total Lequesne index, and pain component of WOMAC index shows a statistically significant difference, favoring the H-F group. The H-F group yields a faster result; however, with time the overall effect remains the same in both groups.
Conclusion: Both H-F and L-F groups show improvement in all the component of Lequesne index, Oxford Knee Score, WOMAC index, and VAS with no statistical difference between the two groups. Although H-F yields a faster result, not everyone is able to tolerate the intensity. Therefore, the selection of H-F or L-F should be done on case basis depending on the severity of symptoms, patient's expectation, and patient's ability to withstand the treatment therapy. Based on this 12th week follow-up, both groups will continue to improve with time. A longer study should be conducted to see it this improvement will eventually plateau off or continue to improve until the patient is symptom free.